Cross, Dtr, and II Samuel 7

In this post, I want to highlight the parts of II Samuel 7 that Frank Moore Cross believes are Deuteronomistic, according to his Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. But I’m not going to highlight every part he deems Deuteronomistic, but only the parts that correspond with the Book of Deuteronomy. I’ll color the Deuteronomist parts in red. After the red part, I’ll cite in parenthesis the Hebrew phrase, as well as the corresponding passages from Deuteronomy. I’ll include comments in purple. The translation is the New Revised Standard Version.

2 Samuel 7:1 Now when the king was settled in his house, and the LORD had given him rest from all his enemies around him,
2 the king said to the prophet Nathan, “See now, I am living in a house of cedar, but the ark of God stays in a tent.”
3 Nathan said to the king, “Go, do all that you have in mind; for the LORD is with you (immach; Deuteronomy 31:8, 23).” I don’t think that makes this passage Deuteronomistic, for immach occurs all over Genesis and in Exodus 3:12 and 18:19.
4 But that same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan:
5 Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the LORD: Are you the one to build me a house to live in?
6 I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about (mithalech; Deuteronomy 23:15) in a tent and a tabernacle. Cross also cites Genesis 3:8 and Leviticus 26:12, so this is not uniquely Deuteronomistic. But how’s Deuteronomy 23:15′s claim that God walks amidst the camp of Israel jive with the argument that Deuteronomy is anti-anthropomorphism when it comes to God, which is why it says God’s name and not God himself lives in the temple? Maybe the Deuteronomist had no problem with God visiting and moving about the Israelites to help them in battle, but he thought saying God was limited to an earthly sanctuary went too far (I Kings 8:27).
7 Wherever I have moved about among all the people of Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the tribal leaders of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?”
8 Now therefore thus you shall say to my servant David: Thus says the LORD of hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep to be prince over my people Israel;
9 and I have been with you (see v 3) wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth.
10 And I will appoint a place (ve-samti maqom; Deuteronomy 1:33) for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall afflict them no more (ve-lo yosiphu bene-avlah le-anoto; Deuteronomy 26:6), as formerly, These passages in Deuteronomy don’t use all of these words, only maqom and anah, the word for “afflict.” I’m not in the mood to do a word-study on these words. This is a passage that McCarter also says is Deuteronomistic, though.
11 from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house.
12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.
13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
14 I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings.
15 But I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you.
16 Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever.
17 In accordance with all these words and with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.
18 Then King David went in and sat before the LORD, and said, “Who am I, O Lord GOD, and what is my house, that you have brought me thus far?
19 And yet this was a small thing in your eyes, O Lord GOD; you have spoken also of your servant’s house for a great while to come. May this be instruction for the people, O Lord GOD!
20 And what more can David say to you? For you know your servant, O Lord GOD!
21 Because of your promise, and according to your own heart, you have wrought all this greatness, so that your servant may know it.
22 Therefore you are great, O LORD God; for there is no one like you, and there is no God besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
23 Who is like your people, like Israel? Is there another nation on earth whose God went to redeem it as a people, and to make a name for himself, doing great and awesome things for them, by driving out before his people nations and their gods?
24 And you established your people Israel for yourself to be your people forever; and you, O LORD, became their God.
25 And now, O LORD God, as for the word that you have spoken concerning your servant and concerning his house, confirm it forever; do as you have promised.
26 Thus your name will be magnified forever in the saying, ‘The LORD of hosts is God over Israel’; and the house of your servant David will be established before you.
27 For you, O LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, have made this revelation to your servant, saying, ‘I will build you a house’; therefore your servant has found courage to pray this prayer to you.
28 And now, O Lord GOD, you are God, and your words are true, and you have promised this good thing to your servant;
29 now therefore may it please you (Deuteronomy 1:5 uses this word to refer to Moses, not God) to bless the house of your servant, so that it may continue forever before you; for you, O Lord GOD, have spoken, and with your blessing shall the house of your servant be blessed forever.”

Okay, I didn’t do everything I said I would. I looked more at the passages that Cross views as Deuteronomistic but that McCarter does not. I don’t think those passages are necessarily Deuteronomistic, since their phraseology occurs in non-Deuteronomistic sections of the Pentateuch.

Shachan

 Throughout Deuteronomy, the central sanctuary is referred to as the “place which the LORD God will cause his name to dwell” (KJV). The Hebrew word translated as “cause to dwell” is the piel of shachan.

In other parts of the Torah, the qal of shachan is used to refer to God dwelling in the earthly sanctuary. Here are the passages, in the NRSV, with the translation of shachan in bold-face:

Exodus 25:8: And have them make me a sanctuary, so that I may dwell among them.

Exodus 29:45-46: I will dwell among the Israelites, and I will be their God. And they shall know that I am the LORD their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt that I might dwell among them; I am the LORD their God.

Numbers 5:3: you shall put out both male and female, putting them outside the camp; they must not defile their camp, where I dwell among them.

Numbers 35:34: You shall not defile the land in which you live, in which I also dwell; for I the LORD dwell among the Israelites.

Outside of the Torah:

1 Kings 6:13: I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel.”

Psalm 74:2: Remember your congregation, which you acquired long ago, which you redeemed to be the tribe of your heritage. Remember Mount Zion, where you came to dwell.

Isaiah 8:18: See, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are signs and portents in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.

Ezekiel 43:7: He said to me: Mortal, this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet, where I will reside among the people of Israel forever. The house of Israel shall no more defile my holy name, neither they nor their kings, by their whoring, and by the corpses of their kings at their death.

Ezekiel 43:9: Now let them put away their idolatry and the corpses of their kings far from me, and I will reside among them forever.

Joel 3:17: So you shall know that I, the LORD your God, dwell in Zion, my holy mountain. And Jerusalem shall be holy, and strangers shall never again pass through it.

Joel 3:21 I will avenge their blood, and I will not clear the guilty, for the LORD dwells in Zion.

Zechariah 2:10-11: Sing and rejoice, O daughter Zion! For lo, I will come and dwell in your midst, says the LORD. Many nations shall join themselves to the LORD on that day, and shall be my people; and I will dwell in your midst. And you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you.

Zechariah 8:3: Thus says the LORD: I will return to Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; Jerusalem shall be called the faithful city, and the mountain of the LORD of hosts shall be called the holy mountain.

We see the view that God dwells (shachan) in the midst of Israel in the tabernacle or the temple on Zion. I think that the Deuteronomist responds to this view with another use of shachan–the piel–to say that God doesn’t dwell in his sanctuary, but he causes his name to dwell there. Something else of significance: Exodus-Numbers often use the term mishkan (tabernacle), which has the root of shachan. But Deuteronomy doesn’t use that term. Could this be because it carries the association of God dwelling in a sanctuary, a concept that Deuteronomy disputes?

Another issue I’ve wondered about: Does shachan mean to permanently dwell in a place, or can it mean “to visit”? If it’s the latter, then God can live in heaven and only visit the Tabernacle on certain occasions. It turns out that the word can mean the latter. Exodus 24:16 uses the word for God’s glory abiding on Sinai for a set period of time. Exodus 40:35 has the same thing with the Tabernacle: God’s cloud comes and fills it at its dedication, but it’s not always there. But shachan often means living in a tent, or in a region. Since the Tabernacle is God’s tent, I think many of the shachan passages mean God is living in Israel’s midst. Plus, I Kings 8:27 (Dtr) goes out of its way to dispute that God dwells on the earth. It uses yeshev rather than shachan, but it’s still disputing that idea.

See ^{7931 for all the uses of shachan.}

The Deuteronomic Agenda and II Samuel 7, I Kings 8

For my paper on I Kings 8:1-30′s use of II Samuel 7, as well as the Deuteronomic emendations of both passages, I’ll need to define relevant parts of the Deuteronomist’s agenda using the Book of Deuteronomy. I’ll also have to identify the Deuteronomic emendations to II Samuel 7 and I Kings 8:1-30 and state how they relate to the Deuteronomist’s agenda, and possibly his terminology. Then, I’ll want to see what I Kings 8:1-30 is doing to II Samuel 7. My point there will be that it’s subordinating II Samuel 7 to a Deuteronomic agenda.

In this post, I’ll be defining three ways in which the Deuteronomist emends II Samuel 7 to fit his agenda, bringing in I Kings 8:1-30 when I deem it necessary.

1. II Samuel 7:13a says that David’s seed (meaning Solomon) will build a house for God’s name. Such a notion conflicts with the notion of sanctuary in vv 5-6, which define it as God living in a house or tabernacle. In I Kings 8:15-20, 27, which is Deuteronomic, it is emphasized that the house is for God’s name. While David in II Samuel 7 wants to build God a house to dwell in, I Kings 8:15-20 interpret II Samuel 7 to mean that David desires to build the house for God’s name, not God himself. And v 27 explicitly affirms that no house can contain God. But there is a contrary voice in I Kings 8, for Solomon says in v 13: “I have built you an exalted house, a place for you to dwell in forever” (NRSV).

In Deuteronomy 12, 14, 16, and 26, God’s sanctuary is continually referred to as the place where God will choose to put his name. That’s Deuteronomic terminology.

2. II Samuel 7:13a says Solomon will build the temple. Although II Samuel 7 mostly talks about God building David an everlasting dynasty, the Deuteronomist in I Kings 8:14-24 interprets the chapter in a manner that stresses Solomon’s construction of the temple: that’s the promise of II Samuel 7 that the Deuteronomist in I Kings 8:14-24 keys in upon, the promise that he himself inserted into II Samuel 7.

So what’s this have to do with Deuteronomic ideology? Deuteronomy 12:8-11 states that Israel’s rest from all her enemies must precede worship at the central sanctuary, the place God will choose to place his name. And I Kings 5:3-5 has Solomon saying that David couldn’t build the temple because he was a man of war, whereas Solomon can because there is rest during his reign.

So why did the Deuteronomist believe this way? Was it just so he could explain why David didn’t build the temple, as the sources in front of him indicated? I’m getting close to writing this paper, but I’d like to take one final look at how P. Kyle McCarter says II Samuel 7 fits into the Deuteronomist’s overall ideology.

3. II Samuel 7 presents God’s covenant with David for an everlasting dynasty is unconditional: if a Davidid sins, God will chastise him, but he won’t remove him from the throne, as he did with Saul.

I Kings 8:25, however, makes the promise conditional on the Davidid’s obedience: “Therefore, O LORD, God of Israel, keep for your servant my father David that which you promised him, saying, ‘There shall never fail you a successor before me to sit on the throne of Israel, if only your children look to their way, to walk before me as you have walked before me.’”

I wonder if I Kings 8:25 is Deuteronomic. My hunch is “yes,” for Deuteronomy 17:14-20 emphasizes the duty of the king to study and obey God’s commandments, and Deuteronomy 28:36 refers to exile of the king and Israel for idolatry. There are scholars who believe there were two stages of Deuteronomy: the pre-exilic Dtr1, and the exilic Dtr2. I don’t know much about how Deuteronomy 28 is treated within scholarship, but that may be something to look into.

McCarter identifies as Deuteronomic II Samuel 7:16, 22b-26, which say that David’s kingdom will last forever, as will Israel’s rest from her enemies. Does this preclude exile? Not necessarily, in my opinion, for v 25 (which McCarter identifies as Deuteronomic) has David asking God to confirm his promise. That tells me that the Deuteronomist believes the promise is at the pleasure of God, meaning it’s not unconditional. In McCarter’s scheme, the parts of II Samuel 7 that have unconditionality are not at the hands of the Deuteronomist.

But I-II Kings does present an unconditional covenant (see Unconditional Covenant in I-II Kings), in that God doesn’t destroy Jerusalem because he wants to preserve a Davidid. Do scholars consider those passages Deuteronomic, or what?

I want to start writing my paper soon, even if I don’t have all the answers. And it won’t end sentences with a preposition, as this post flagrantly does!

Color Code for II Samuel 7

In this post, I want to color code II Samuel 7 according to P. Kyle McCarter’s division of the sources in his Anchor Bible commentary. The code is as follows:

Green will be for the primitive document, which McCarter dates to the time of David and Solomon. The thesis of this document is that David wanted to build God a house, and God responded in turn that he’ll build David a house, an everlasting dynasty.

Blue will be for the prophetic source, which is skeptical about the monarchy and opposes the building of a temple. I’m not sure right now when McCarter dates it, but he thinks that the prophetic writer edited the primitive document.

Red will be for the Deuteronomist, who thinks God’s name (not God himself) dwells in the temple and stresses that Solomon will be the one who will build it, since “rest” in the land will exist under Solomon, not David (and rest must precede centralization, according to Deuteronomy 12). My impression is that, for McCarter, the Deuteronomist adds his additions to the primitive document+the prophetic additions.

The translation is the New Revised Standard Version.

2 Samuel 7:1 Now when the king was settled in his house, and the LORD had given him rest from all his enemies around him,
2 the king said to the prophet Nathan, “See now, I am living in a house of cedar, but the ark of God stays in a tent.”
3 Nathan said to the king, “Go, do all that you have in mind; for the LORD is with you.”
4 But that same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan:
5 Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the LORD: Are you the one to build me a house to live in?
6 I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent and a tabernacle.
7 Wherever I have moved about among all the people of Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the tribal leaders of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?”
8 Now therefore thus you shall say to my servant David: Thus says the LORD of hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep to be prince over my people Israel;
9 and I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth.
10 And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall afflict them no more, as formerly,
11 from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house.
12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.
13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
14 I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings.
15 But I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you.
16 Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever.
17 In accordance with all these words and with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.
18 Then King David went in and sat before the LORD, and said, “Who am I, O Lord GOD, and what is my house, that you have brought me thus far?
19 And yet this was a small thing in your eyes, O Lord GOD; you have spoken also of your servant’s house for a great while to come. May this be instruction for the people, O Lord GOD!
20 And what more can David say to you? For you know your servant, O Lord GOD!
21 Because of your promise, and according to your own heart, you have wrought all this greatness, so that your servant may know it.
22 Therefore you are great, O LORD God; for there is no one like you, and there is no God besides you, according to all that we have heard with our ears.
23 Who is like your people, like Israel? Is there another nation on earth whose God went to redeem it as a people, and to make a name for himself, doing great and awesome things for them, by driving out before his people nations and their gods?
24 And you established your people Israel for yourself to be your people forever; and you, O LORD, became their God.
25 And now, O LORD God, as for the word that you have spoken concerning your servant and concerning his house, confirm it forever; do as you have promised.
26 Thus your name will be magnified forever in the saying, ‘The LORD of hosts is God over Israel’; and the house of your servant David will be established before you.
27 For you, O LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, have made this revelation to your servant, saying, ‘I will build you a house’; therefore your servant has found courage to pray this prayer to you.
28 And now, O Lord GOD, you are God, and your words are true, and you have promised this good thing to your servant;
29 now therefore may it please you to bless the house of your servant, so that it may continue forever before you; for you, O Lord GOD, have spoken, and with your blessing shall the house of your servant be blessed forever.”

Personally, I’m not sure if the division absolutely has to be this way. But I do sympathize with McCarter’s claim that pro- and anti-temple voices co-exist in this chapter, and also that the Deuteronomist applies a chapter that’s mostly about David’s everlasting dynasty to Solomon’s construction of the temple.

Nagid

In my post, I Kings 8′s Allusion to II Samuel 7, I mentioned I Kings 8:16′s allusion to II Samuel 7:8:

II Samuel 7:8: Now therefore thus you shall say to my servant David: Thus says the LORD of hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep to be prince over my people Israel…(NRSV)

I Kings 8:16: Since the day that I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I have not chosen a city from any of the tribes of Israel in which to build a house, that my name might be there; but I chose David to be over my people Israel.’

I Kings 8:16 omits the word that II Samuel 7:8 uses for prince: nagid.

Is this significant? I’m not sure. I read P. Kyle McCarter’s comments on nagid in his Anchor Bible commentary on I Samuel (178-179, 186-187). According to McCarter, the term often occurs in reference to God’s appointment of a king-designate, who is sanctioned by the prophet. Nagid usually refers to someone who hasn’t become king yet. McCarter sites I Samuel 9:16; 10:1; 13:14; II Samuel 5:2; I Kings 14:7; 16:2; cf. II Samuel 7:8.

I’m not entirely sure if this works. I mean, why can’t nagid simply mean “ruler”? When David told Michal that God appointed him nagid in place of her father, Saul, was he getting excited about being a king-designate, or the actual ruler (II Samuel 6:21)? Years before David became king, and Abigail stopped him from killing Nabal, telling him that he won’t want bloodguilt when God will command him to be a nagid, what did she mean by nagid? The king-designate who hadn’t yet ascended the throne? David was already that! He had been anointed by Samuel, and he wasn’t king yet. I think nagid probably means “ruler.”

Moreover, while McCarter is correct that I-II Samuel and I-II Kings often use the term nagid in reference to a prophet designating a person king, that’s not always the case. Job uses it to refer to nobles (Job 29:10). Ezekiel calls the head of Tyre a nagid (Ezekiel 28:2).

Moreover, I read in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament that Psalm 76:12 uses nagid as a parallel with the Hebrew word for king, melek.

Still, it’s interesting that nagid can occur in the context of two things: (1.) military leadership (I Samuel 9:16), and (2.) prophetic sanction (the references McCarter cites).

We see (1.) in II Samuel 7:8-9, in which, after calling David a nagid, God promises to cut off his enemies before him. But I Kings 8:16-19 doesn’t mention David’s battles, but focuses rather on his desire to build the temple. Could this have something to do with its omission of the word nagid?

For (2.), I wonder if the Deuteronomist is big on prophetic sanction. That is something I’ll have to check in Weinfeld, and perhaps in the commentaries I have on Samuel and Kings. In Exodus 18, Jethro suggests to Moses that he establish a judiciary. In Deuteronomy 1, Jethro is out of the picture. Could the Deuteronomist have problems with God using intermediaries, and that’s why he omits nagid in I Kings 8:16? He prefers for God to appoint the king directly? At the same time, I know Deuteronomy 18 discusses prophets, so Deuteronomy isn’t against them. But it will still do me good to check out what Weinfeld has to say about the Deuteronomist and prophets.

I know this post is kind of a stretch, but this is a place for me to brainstorm. Actually, I’m close to writing my paper, and that’s good.

From Your Bowels/Loins

In II Samuel 7:12 states: “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom” (NRSV).

According to P. Kyle McCarter, this originally referred to David’s seed in a collective sense, as in his entire royal dynasty, but the Deuteronomist inserted v 13 to apply it specifically to Solomon.

Here, I want to look at the phrase that the NRSV translates “from your body” (mi-memecha) to see if that is used in the context of a collective seed, the immediate offspring, or both.

Genesis 15:3-5: And Abram said, “You have given me no offspring, and so a slave born in my house is to be my heir.” But the word of the LORD came to him, “This man shall not be your heir; no one but your very own issue shall be your heir.” He brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your descendants be.”

This seems to relate to Abraham’s immediate offspring, Isaac, who is the prerequisite for other descendants. The idea is that Abraham will have a son, who will be his heir.

Genesis 25:23: And the LORD said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples born of you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the elder shall serve the younger.”

Esau and Jacob were in her womb, yet, in a sense, they are collective, since they are the ancestors of nations.

Numbers 5:22: now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop!” And the woman shall say, “Amen. Amen.”

The woman won’t be able to have immediate offspring because of the water she drinks.

Ruth 1:11: But Naomi said, “Turn back, my daughters, why will you go with me? Do I still have sons in my womb that they may become your husbands?

This is immediate offspring.

II Samuel 16:11: David said to Abishai and to all his servants, “My own son seeks my life; how much more now may this Benjaminite! Let him alone, and let him curse; for the LORD has bidden him.

Immediate offspring, namely, Absalom.

II Chronicles 32:21: And the LORD sent an angel who cut off all the mighty warriors and commanders and officers in the camp of the king of Assyria. So he returned in disgrace to his own land. When he came into the house of his god, some of his own sons struck him down there with the sword.

Immediate offspring.

Psalm 71:6: Upon you I have leaned from my birth; it was you who took me from my mother’s womb. My praise is continually of you.

Immediate offspring.

Isaiah 48:19: your offspring would have been like the sand, and your descendants like its grains; their name would never be cut off or destroyed from before me.

Different versions translate this in different ways. The NRSV has descendants, whereas the NAB has “those born of your stock.” Is this immediate offspring or collective seed? A little of both, perhaps, since the topic is the Israelites having lots of children for the nation.

Isaiah 49:1: Listen to me, O coastlands, pay attention, you peoples from far away! The LORD called me before I was born, while I was in my mother’s womb he named me.

Immediate offspring.

Conclusion: It mostly means immediate offspring, but it can be collective and refer to descendants, every now and then. So why’s McCarter see it as collective? Maybe on the basis of context, since II Samuel 7 promises David an everlasting dynasty. And, for there to be an everlasting dynasty, God must only chastise the descendants of David, not remove them from the throne. But here’s a thought: Maybe the Deuteronomist thought that whole chastisement business only applied to Solomon, but not Solomon’s descendants who came after him. In that case, he thought Solomon was the one with the unconditional covenant, whereas Solomon’s descendants had a conditional covenant: God would preserve their line if they obeyed.

But that may not work, for I Kings 9 says God will preserve his covenant only if Solomon and his descendants obey, so Solomon doesn’t get a free pass, while his descendants are saddled with conditions. Plus, David in I Kings 2 exhorts Solomon to keep the commandments so God can maintain his covenant.

Now I want to take a look at the parallel term used in I Kings 8:19: nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who shall be born to you shall build the house for my name.’ This literally says “from your loins” (me-chalatsecha).

Genesis 35:11: God said to him, “I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall come from you, and kings shall spring from you.

Here, it’s collective. Descendants are said to come from Abraham’s body.

Conclusion: I guess I Kings 8:19 is simply using an expression that’s interchangeable with that used in II Samuel 7:12. While immediate offspring can be said to come from a person’s body (be it man or woman), so can descendants. So a phrase about coming from a person’s body doesn’t have to mean an immediate son or daughter, but it can refer to descendants as well. II Samuel 7:12 is therefore ambiguous, but the Deuteronomist took it in a specific way, according to his agenda.

Loosely Quoting God

In my post, I Kings 8′s Allusion to II Samuel 7, Part II, I cite I Kings 2:4, 8:25, and 9:5, which quote God as saying that “there will not be cut off for you a man from on the throne of Israel” (my translation), meaning David will always have a successor sitting on the throne. 8:25 adds a few words: “There will not be cut off for you a man from before me sitting on the throne of Israel.”

My struggle was this: These passages quote God’s promise, which is basically the one that appears in II Samuel 7. Yet, the exact phrase in those passages does not appear in II Samuel 7. So are these passages referring to II Samuel 7, or to an independent tradition?

One thing I noted was that quotations can be loose. We see this in I Kings 8:25, which expands on the phrase that appears in I Kings 2:4 and 9:5, while claiming to quote God.

But, in a sense, the solution to my problem was staring me in the face without me realizing it. I Kings 8:16-21 is presented as a direct quote of God, specifically of the scene in II Samuel 7. Yet, it’s different from II Samuel 7, since it subordinates that chapter to a Deuteronomic agenda. I Kings 8:16-21 has different emphases and a slightly different order from II Samuel 7. And yet, there are similarities in vocabulary, word-order, and phrases between I Kings 8:16-21 and II Samuel 7, as I show in I Kings 8′s Allusion to II Samuel 7 and I Kings 8′s Allusion to II Samuel 7, Part II. Consequently, I think that I Kings 8:16-21 is alluding to II Samuel 7, even if it doesn’t quote it exactly.

But there are times when I Kings 8 claims to quote God’s revelation to David in the story that appears in II Samuel 7, yet it refers to ideas that are not explicitly in II Samuel 7. In I Kings 8:25, Solomon quotes God saying to David, “There shall never fail you a successor before me to sit on the throne of Israel, if only your children look to their way, to walk before me as you have walked before me.” I Kings 8:25 says that God’s promise to David of a lasting dynasty was conditional on obedience, whereas II Samuel 7 presents it as clearly unconditional.

What can one do with this? Does the person who added the conditionality believe that God gave David that condition, only it didn’t appear in the text of II Samuel 7? Or is he reading the condition into II Samuel 7, since David feels a need to ask God to fulfill his promise in II Samuel 7:29, possibly implying it’s not totally certain?

Rest in II Samuel 7

I raised some questions about “rest” in II Samuel 7 in my post, Rest, Then Centralization. It turns out that P. Kyle McCarter believes all the references to “rest” in II Samuel 7 are Deuteronomic. That would include vv 9b-11a. V 10 is especially of interest:

“And I will set up a place (maqom) for my people, for Israel, and I will plant it, and it will dwell in its place, and it will not be agitated again. Sons of unrighteousness will not again afflict it as formerly.”

This is my translation of the verse. McCarter argues that the “place” is the central sanctuary, whereas most contend that it refers to the Promised Land. But didn’t God already plant the Israelites in their land? A.A. Anderson says in his Word Commentary that the verse means God will keep Israel safe under David and his dynasty (121).

For McCarter, the verse means that God will establish a central sanctuary that will not be disturbed, as it was formerly. McCarter applies the “sons of unrighteousness” to Hophni and Phinehas (I Samuel 2:11-26). The Deuteronomist says that the priestly line of Eli will come to an end (I Samuel 2:27-36), which occurs by the time the temple is built, since, a little bit before that, Zadok replaces Abiathar, the descendant of Eli (I Kings 2:26-27, 35b). McCarter states, “In the new sanctuary, we are assured, such corruption [(that of Eli's sons)] will not take place” (Anchor Bible 204).

I wonder if the Deuteromistic History ever criticizes the priesthood, or if it reserves its criticism for others: the king, the people of Israel, etc. Moreover, could the part of v 10 about the sons of unrighteousness refer to the Philistines’ destruction of Shiloh before Israel had a king (Psalm 78:6; Jeremiah 7)? While the judges failed to protect the central sanctuary, the rationale would run, the king would safeguard it. Would that imply that II Samuel 7:10 is pre-exilic, since the Jerusalem temple was destroyed, thereby invalidating v 10 (at least apparently)? Maybe, but not necessarily: If a king behaves as a good Deuteronomist Davidic king should behave, the Deuteronomist may think in the back of his mind, then the temple will not be destroyed. I don’t know.

I asked yesterday about II Samuel 7:1, which states that God gave David rest all around from his enemies. Does McCarter view this as Deuteronomic? If so, how would he reconcile that with I Kings 5:3-5, which says rest came under Solomon, whereas David was a man of war? McCarter believes that the part of II Samuel 7:1 about rest was a post-exilic insertion into the text, for he notes that I Chronicles 17 (which interprets and revises II Samuel 7) in the parallel verse (v 1) does not mention rest, and Chronicles was written after Samuel (191). So McCarter doesn’t think the “rest” belongs in II Samuel 7:1, meaning the Deuteronomist did not write it, and Dtr’s being consistent with his claim in I Kings 5:3-5 that true rest came under Solomon, which is why he and not David built the temple.

A.A. Anderson disagrees, for he says that the Chronicler may have omitted the part about “rest” because there are wars in later chapters. “God granted David rest, but there are still wars? That doesn’t make any sense!,” A.A. Anderson’s Chronicler is thinking, as he deletes “rest” from his retelling of the story.

Personally, I like the “rest” in II Samuel 7:1: David has defeated his enemies, and he’s relaxing. Then he thinks that maybe God deserves a temple as fancy as David’s palace. The rest provides David with an opportunity to think about building a temple. But the problem is that, if the “rest” of II Samuel 7:1 is from the Deuteronomist, who’s big on “rest,” then the Deuteronomist may be contradicting what he says in I Kings 5:3-5: Solomon not David will build the temple because rest finally exists under Solomon.

At the same time, McCarter says that rest was fulfilled in a preliminary way by the Conquest, but that true rest came under Solomon. I posted yesterday references to Joshua that refer to rest after the Conquest. Couldn’t the rest of II Samuel 7:1 also be preliminary?

That reminds me of what I was reading today in Moshe Weinfeld’s Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School: For the Deuteronomist, the king is the one who truly implements the moral law of the Torah for Israelite society. During the time of the Judges, it’s chaos! Joshua did it somewhat, but he was a semi-royal figure. So, for Weinfeld, the monarchy was the best institution to safeguard Israel’s religion and worship. Previous people could do a halfway decent job on occasion, but not as well as the monarchy (170-171). Even in the time of Joshua, things could be pretty ad hoc, as when all of Israel gathered against their fellow Israelites across the Jordan for building another altar, when that wasn’t what the Transjordanian Israelites were doing at all (Joshua 22)! Before there was a king, centralization (when it was enforced) was enforced in a chaotic manner. For the Deuteronomist, that changed when Israel had a king!

Here’s another thought: Maybe Solomon built the temple because he was the only king who ruled over a time of complete and perfect rest, which, according to the Deuteronomist, was a prerequisite for the building of the temple. But the rest did not last, for wars occurred after Solomon’s death. Centuries later, the exile occurred, a dramatic disruption of Israel’s rest from her enemies. Could that be why the Deuteronomist emphasizes Solomon so much in II Samuel 7:13, and I Kings 8: he was the only king who had true rest?

Rest, then Centralization, Part II

This is Part II of my post, Rest, Then Centralization. Please read that if you want background information for this post.

Okay, why is it that the Deuteronomist in II Samuel 7:13 makes the generalized zera of v 12 refer specifically to Solomon, who will build a house for God’s name? I think part of the answer is this: the II Samuel 7 that was in front of the Deuteronomist said that David didn’t build the temple. That was puzzling in the ancient world, for kings worth anything built temples. You can tell that the Deuteronomist was concerned about this issue from I Kings 5:3-5, which says that David didn’t build the temple because he was a man of war, so Solomon will build it because the LORD has given him rest from his enemies. The Deuteronomist was addressing an issue that people had: Why did Solomon and not David build the temple?

The Deuteronomist looked at II Samuel 7 and saw the following: David offers to build God a house, God tells David “no” because he’s never dwelt in a house, and God promises to build David a house, an everlasting dynasty. The document in front of the Deuteronomist may be from the time of David, which is why it doesn’t mention that Solomon would build the temple. Or it came long after David and was anti-temple, for whatever reason.

But the Deuteronomist doesn’t like II Samuel 7 not mentioning the temple, for he’s big on the central sanctuary. And so he inserts v 13, which says that Solomon will build it. He also goes to I Kings 8 and ties that chapter with II Samuel 7, the chapter he had before him plus his additions.

Rest, then Centralization

In II Samuel 7:13, the Deuteronomist wants to emphasize that Solomon would build a house for God’s name. P. Kyle McCarter, in his Anchor Bible commentary on II Samuel, maintains that the Deuteronomist applies the zera (seed) of v 12 to Solomon, even though the “seed” originally referred to David’s entire dynasty, not just Solomon.

Why would the Deuteronomist want to focus so much on Solomon? McCarter refers to Deuteronomy 12 and Deuteromistic passages, which may shed light on the issue (191, 217). Deuteronomy 12 states the following:

You shall not act as we are acting here today, all of us according to our own desires, for you have not yet come into the rest and the possession that the LORD your God is giving you. When you cross over the Jordan and live in the land that the LORD your God is allotting to you, and when he gives you rest from your enemies all around so that you live in safety, then you shall bring everything that I command you to the place that the LORD your God will choose as a dwelling for his name: your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and your donations, and all your choice votive gifts that you vow to the LORD. (Deuteronomy 12:8-11, NRSV)

The order that Deuteronomy 12 prescribes is (1.) Israel gets rest from all her enemies, then (2.) worship in the central sanctuary. Centralization of worship comes after rest, according to Deuteronomy 12.

Why did the Deuteronomist think God forbade David to build the temple? I Kings 5:3-5 puts the following words in Solomon’s mouth:

“You know that my father David could not build a house for the name of the LORD his God because of the warfare with which his enemies surrounded him, until the LORD put them under the soles of his feet. But now the LORD my God has given me rest on every side; there is neither adversary nor misfortune. So I intend to build a house for the name of the LORD my God, as the LORD said to my father David, ‘Your son, whom I will set on your throne in your place, shall build the house for my name.’”

For the Deuteronomist, David couldn’t build the temple because there wasn’t complete rest under him. But Israel had rest from her enemies in the time of Solomon, so he could build the temple. The Deuteronomist is adhering to the pattern of Deuteronomy 12: rest, then centralization.

Of course, the problem is that II Samuel 7:1 says the LORD granted David rest from his enemies. Yet, vv 9-11 treat God granting Israel rest from her enemies as future. I wonder how McCarter handles these verses. Many see Israel’s “rest” from her enemies as a Deuteronomist concept. It first appears in Deuteronomy 12:10. It also pops up in the Deuteromistic History, in Joshua 21:44 and 23:1. Those passages say that Israel got rest immediately after the Conquest, but we see from Judges that this didn’t last long. But my impression of McCarter (which could be wrong) is that he views II Samuel 7:9-11 as pre-Deuteronomic. How can he do this, when these passages mention “rest”?

I’d like to do two things. Maybe I’ll get to them tomorrow. Maybe I won’t entirely:

1. I want to see how McCarter handles the verses in II Samuel 7 that talk about “rest” from enemies, a Deuteronomic concept.

2. I want to look at Moshe Weinfeld’s treatment of “rest” in Deuteronomy and the Deuteromistic History.